The Anti-Communist Argument That Millions Died Under Communism

[Chairman Mike]

I just want to hear everyone's opinion on the argument that Communism has killed millions of people, and therefore is a bad system. I have heard numerous anti-communists use this argument and roll my eyes every time I hear it. Thanks in advance for any input :thumbup1:

[Omsk]

Capitalism and imperialism also killed millions:
Philippine Insurrection................220,000
Nanking Massacre.......................300,000
Iraq Selling Poison to Saddam.300,000
Iraq (Desert Storm)......................500,000
Invasion of the Philippines.........650,000
US War Afghanistan....................1,200,00
US War Iraq................................1,50…
US Backed Khmer Rouge.......2,035,000
South African Apartheid............3,500,000
Japanese Imperialism.............6,000,000
Vietnam War............................10,000,00…
Korean War..............................10,000,…
British Occupation of India....10,000,000
Dutch East Indies...........................25,000
US Revolutionary War....................35,000
Japan Occupation of East Timor.70,000
Japanese Bombing of China.......71,105
Second Boer War...........................75,000
Japan Massacre of Singapore..100,000
Burma-Siam Railroad Cons.....116,000
Japan Germ Warfare in China..200,000
Shia Killed by Saddam...............300,000
US imposed sanctions on Iraq.1,00,000
US Backed General Suharto...1,200,000
Irish Potato Famine..................1,500,000
Japanese Democides.............5,964,000
Famine of 1932-33...................7,000,000
The Bengal Famine of 1943.4,000,000
Famine in Held British India.30,000,000
These numbers are not proven,but they are there only to represent the shere number of deaths involved with capitalism and imperialism.
People who mention communism in the Great Patriotic War and the high death rate,forget the nazi war machine,hunger caused by the war,the winter and the state of the world back than,so its wrong to blame communism for that,sure uncle Stalin was responsible for a lot of deaths,but to blame communism for all Russian casualties and deaths is absurd.

[RadioRaheem84]

I think the problem is that imperialists start the clock at 1945 and tend to omit their crimes leaving only room for "communist atrocities".

Apparently, the whole history of imperialism is a interpreted as irrelevant stage of development that has no bearing on governance today, especially after the US defeated the Nazis. Somehow that makes us less susceptible to committing crimes.

[danyboy27]

Capitalism and imperialism also killed millions:
Philippine Insurrection................220,000
Nanking Massacre.......................300,000
Iraq Selling Poison to Saddam.300,000
Iraq (Desert Storm)......................500,000
Invasion of the Philippines.........650,000
US War Afghanistan....................1,200,00
US War Iraq................................1,50…
US Backed Khmer Rouge.......2,035,000
South African Apartheid............3,500,000
Japanese Imperialism.............6,000,000
Vietnam War............................10,000,00…
Korean War..............................10,000,…
British Occupation of India....10,000,000
Dutch East Indies...........................25,000
US Revolutionary War....................35,000
Japan Occupation of East Timor.70,000
Japanese Bombing of China.......71,105
Second Boer War...........................75,000
Japan Massacre of Singapore..100,000
Burma-Siam Railroad Cons.....116,000
Japan Germ Warfare in China..200,000
Shia Killed by Saddam...............300,000
US imposed sanctions on Iraq.1,00,000
US Backed General Suharto...1,200,000
Irish Potato Famine..................1,500,000
Japanese Democides.............5,964,000
Famine of 1932-33...................7,000,000
The Bengal Famine of 1943.4,000,000
Famine in Held British India.30,000,000
These numbers are not proven,but they are there only to represent the shere number of deaths involved with capitalism and imperialism.
People who mention communism in the Great Patriotic War and the high death rate,forget the nazi war machine,hunger caused by the war,the winter and the state of the world back than,so its wrong to blame communism for that,sure uncle Stalin was responsible for a lot of deaths,but to blame communism for all Russian casualties and deaths is absurd.
its all good but certainly not an argument against the claim that communism killed millions, if anything this is just conscent that yea indeed, the soviet union killed million of people.

[danyboy27]

Well, if you consider Russia communist, yea communism affected the lives of million of people.

But the soviet union never achieved communism, so this claim that communism killed ton of people is irrelevant.

The initial claim that 30 millions people where killed in russia has a result of Lenin takeover is bullshit tho.

at worst estimate are around 3 million casualities, including several action taken during the war against the german, so i guess you could lower the numbe again.

But honestly, you cant measure the damage made to a society by a regime simply with the number of people killed, its the number of people and generations psychologicly affected by a regime that determine the damage done.

These anti-communist books are good with the spooky number, but lack the coherent analisys of the situation and understanding of what communism is in reality.

[Obs]

Ideas, being minor electrical currents within a human brain, are incapable of killing people.

[Che a chara]

Capitalist propaganda totally distorts and falsely multiplies the deaths occurred under 'communism', and you'll also never hear of these propagandists citing the number of deaths occurred under capitalism and imperialism which outweighs in comparison to 'communism'.

Millions have been killed under the guise of communism (which of course has never existed, and many will argue neither has true socialism). So 'communism' has been tainted and probably rightly so due to the crimes committed in it's name. But ones who use this argument clearly have no understanding of the ideology and it's system. No-where in communist literature will you find Karl Marx or Lenin advocating the deliberate mass murder and starvation of civilians, instead you'll find the exact opposite of equality, humanism, working class solidarity, and yes also a need for authoritarianism for it's prevalence , whereas in capitalism it's profit over human need in a dog-eat-dog world where the existence of the system is based on greed and financial gain over the basic needs of humanity and the long-term survival of the planet and it's resources.

You'll also hear many other proponents of capitalism or of a more social and regulated form of capitalism claim that socialism/communism is a fantastic idea on paper but not a realistic possibility, mainly due to apparent human nature, which they say is greed, which IMO self defeats the whole argument about the morality of capitalism.

So the "millions killed" argument is an easy and simplified excuse for totally brainwashing and shocking the public into instant discreditably without ever having to get the uninformed read up on the truths and to educate themselves in the facts. So my advise would to do just that, and read up on the facts and the structures of the systems and ideologies of communism and capitalism.

[The Man]

I just want to hear everyone's opinion on the argument that Communism has killed millions of people, and therefore is a bad system. I have heard numerous anti-communists use this argument and roll my eyes every time I hear it. Thanks in advance for any input :thumbup1:

No one has died under Communism really. Because there has never been real Communism.

Sure, people might have died under Stalin and Mao, who were Communists. But that doesn't make them Communism.

[Baseball]

Millions have been killed under the guise of communism (which of course has never existed, and many will argue neither has true socialism)

And many will argue that "true" socialism has occurred. What is "true" socialism? Its simple, really. Its the socialism for which a particular socialist advocates.


So 'communism' has been tainted and probably rightly so due to the crimes committed in it's name. But ones who use this argument clearly have no understanding of the ideology and it's system. No-where in communist literature will you find Karl Marx or Lenin advocating the deliberate mass murder and starvation of civilians,

One might say the same re: National Socialism. But nobody really questions that what one saw under the National Socialists is what one can reasonably and logically expect from future endeavors along the same line.


instead you'll find the exact opposite of equality, humanism, working class solidarity, and yes also a need for authoritarianism for it's prevalence ,

Yep. And the mass murder was to achieve these ends.



You'll also hear many other proponents of capitalism or of a more social and regulated form of capitalism claim that socialism/communism is a fantastic idea on paper but not a realistic possibility,

Its a lousy idea on paper also. The problem is not socialISTS. The problem is socialiISM.

[Revolution starts with U]

Ok baseball, then how many died as a result of the socialism in anarchist spain?
Here's another thing people tend to miss; most of the people who tell you this out of one side of the mouth, and out of the other call their pinnacle of morality in the world, America, socialist as well.
But of course they will never live up to the death toll behind capitalism. Because to them, a country is capitalist for the good things, and socialist for the bad things, no need for any kind of intellectual analysis.
The native american holocaust is directly tied to capitalism and the capitalists, and if you think the trail of tears (a horrible process of the government trying to save the natives from the encroaches of private property and private citizens) was the worst part, you're crazy. Coca Cola, Chiquita, Dole, and many other currently existing companies are directly involved in the tyrannical repression of people across the 3rd world right now.
The death toll may be an argument against socialism.. it certainly is an argument against certain kinds of socialism. But it is just as easy, if not easier to apply it to capitalism.
Also, those numbers are skewed. Not including the famines, Stalin can only be tied to about 400k death. That's bad enough, and fuck Stalin. But capitalist apologetics are anything but honest on this matter.

[Bud Struggle]

Capitalsim has killed millions.
Fascism has killed millions.
Communism has killed millions.

[Che a chara]

And many will argue that "true" socialism has occurred. What is "true" socialism? Its simple, really. Its the socialism for which a particular socialist advocates.

Yes and many socialists will also argue otherwise. socialism is a broad term, but again, one that is authoritarian, but one that does not promote inequality or profit over need, which was why I say education and research into the topic would be advisable for proper objectivity.


One might say the same re: National Socialism. But nobody really questions that what one saw under the National Socialists is what one can reasonably and logically expect from future endeavors along the same line.

One would be wrong. Nazism did advocate ethnic cleansing, racial supremacism and it's imperial intentions throughout it's ideology. Mein Kampf was no innocent picnic either.



Yep. And the mass murder was to achieve these ends.

Social and material Conditions and paranoia pre and post WW2 can be an excuse for the causes for a lot of the deaths happening under the leadership of 'socialist' states, not the actual ideology.

More mass slaughters were carried out to achieve capitalism and imperialism, and these are a direct consequence and effect of such a system.


Its a lousy idea on paper also. The problem is not socialISTS. The problem is socialiISM.

So says you and a bitter you by the sounds of things.

There is absolutely no objectivity or subjectivity in your analysis, just black and white rhetoric.

[Baseball]

Ok baseball, then how many died as a result of the socialism in anarchist spain?

Beats me. Certainly the warfare between the anarchists and communists was quite bloody.



But of course they will never live up to the death toll behind capitalism.

Its a false charge. The issue is that it takes sacrifice to get ahead. Is the sacrifice worth it. Did Russia, the most rapidly industrializing country on earth 1914c. benefit from socialism?


Because to them, a country is capitalist for the good things, and socialist for the bad things, no need for any kind of intellectual analysis.

What I tend to find hereabouts is that the sins of socialism are written off to errors of individual socialists.


The native american holocaust is directly tied to capitalism and the capitalists, and if you think the trail of tears (a horrible process of the government trying to save the natives from the encroaches of private property and private citizens) was the worst part, you're crazy.

The "Trail of tears" occurred during the Jackson Administration. That administration kicked out the Cherokee because the "people" demanded it. Its tied directly to democracy (the election of 1828 generally considered as the first "democratic" election), not capitalism. Naturally, the "aristocratic" Adams Administration had defended the Cherokees against the encroachment.


Coca Cola, Chiquita, Dole, and many other currently existing companies are directly involved in the tyrannical repression of people across the 3rd world right now.

Oh, please! Play that violin!

[syndicat]

The "Trail of tears" occurred during the Jackson Administration. That administration kicked out the Cherokee because the "people" demanded it. Its tied directly to democracy (the election of 1828 generally considered as the first "democratic" election), not capitalism. Naturally, the "aristocratic" Adams Administration had defended the Cherokees against the encroachment.



it's naive to suppose "the people" control the state in the USA. in any case, expulsion of the Cherokees didn't happen because the ordinary people were mobilized to demand it, but because the planter class demanded it. Capitalism is an expansionist system, and the planter class wanted more land, more slaves, to make more profits. This is an example of how the capitalist elite, in the search for their first and only love, profits, engage in murder and theft and genocide.

[RadioRaheem84]

it's naive to suppose "the people" control the state in the USA. in any case, expulsion of the Cherokees didn't happen because the ordinary people were mobilized to demand it, but because the planter class demanded it. Capitalism is an expansionist system, and the planter class wanted more land, more slaves, to make more profits. This is an example of how the capitalist elite, in the search for their first and only love, profits, engage in murder and theft and genocide.


Exactly. He is just coming up with another erroneous disconnection between capitalism and the state.

Apparently, right-libertarians like Baseball really do not see capitalism as a social order but some natural system that arises despite/outside of social institutions.

[Ocean Seal]

Despite how awful all the crimes of capitalism are by the numbers the Native American genocide eclipses the crimes of socialism in one fell swoop. The number killed by some speculated to be as high as 100 mln certainly is not something to be laughed at, and yet the capitalists seem to forget this number.

Also keep in mind that 15 mln children die a year due to starvation. We produce 10X the necessary amount of food for the world's population. Their deaths are crimes of ideology. The capitalist ideology. The Soviet Union has not existed since 1991 so thats about 19 years of global capitalism allowing this to happen. This yields the largest number available.

Just go by the numbers and you'll see that capitalism has more to be afraid of than the "Evil Empire/Bloody History of Communism".

[B5C]

So what? Both sides killed millions of people for power and influence.

[Che a chara]

Chomsky, in reference to India alone:


"the democratic capitalist 'experiment' has caused more deaths than in the entire history of ... Communism everywhere since 1917: over 100 million deaths by 1979, and tens of millions more since, in India alone."

[B5C]

Should we start talking about how wrong the deaths caused by both ideologies? Instead of saying well my ideology killed less, so were not as bad?

[StockholmSyndrome]

Capitalism/Imperialism and Communism have both killed millions. Capitalism/Imperialism has been around a lot longer and has killed a lot more. The question should be, why do both of these systems disregard human life and how can we create humane socialism for the 21st century?


Social and material Conditions and paranoia pre and post WW2 can be an excuse for the causes for a lot of the deaths happening under the leadership of 'socialist' states, not the actual ideology

Hear this a lot, but what does it really mean? It means that for Marxists, social reality must be forcefully molded to fit the ideological prescription without regard to human expense. Just as the rule of capital systematically uproots social reality in the name of accumulation without regard to human expense.

[Rafiq]

And many will argue that "true" socialism has occurred. What is "true" socialism? Its simple, really. Its the socialism for which a particular socialist advocates.
.


True socialism is worker's ownership over the means of production, and and every Socialist agrees.

[Rafiq]

Capitalsim has killed millions.
Fascism has killed millions.
Communism has killed millions.


No, bud.

The difference is, is that people have died due to the Capitalist system, and people have died due to the Fascist system, but no one died as a result of the communist system, since it has never existed.

[Rafiq]

Its a false charge. The issue is that it takes sacrifice to get ahead. Is the sacrifice worth it. Did Russia, the most rapidly industrializing country on earth 1914c. benefit from socialism?




The hell if it didn't!

Russia was far from fucking industrializing in 1914.....

I'm no fan of Stalin, but to deny 'Socialism' improved living standards greatly is fucking horse shit.

[Bud Struggle]

No, bud.

The difference is, is that people have died due to the Capitalist system, and people have died due to the Fascist system, but no one died as a result of the communist system, since it has never existed.

You are right. It's kind of like Atlantis or Oz or Fairyland. The question is can we ever get beyond attempts at Communism and move on the real thing. After fifty or so tries--the outcome is not as certain as it once was.

[Rafiq]

You are right. It's kind of like Atlantis or Oz or Fairyland. The question is can we ever get beyond attempts at Communism and move on the real thing. After fifty or so tries--the outcome is not as certain as it once was.


Well, we know one thing:

Leninist tactics to achieve communism don't work.

Those are pretty much the only 'attempts' we've seen.

[Bud Struggle]

You woudn't say Mao was something different--or does he fall under the Leninist "big tent?"

[The Man]

Well, we know one thing:

Leninist tactics to achieve communism don't work.

Those are pretty much the only 'attempts' we've seen.


Man, Rafiq your my hero. If I could thank this post a million times I would. :thumbup1:

[Thug Lessons]

Well, we know one thing:

Leninist tactics to achieve communism don't work.

Those are pretty much the only 'attempts' we've seen.

Then give up on communism period. Anarchist/left communist/Luxembourgist tactics have historically lead to communist movements that couldn't even gain power, let alone work.

[Thug Lessons]

No, bud.

The difference is, is that people have died due to the Capitalist system, and people have died due to the Fascist system, but no one died as a result of the communist system, since it has never existed.

Well, I'll have you know I'm a libertarian fascist, and neither capitalism nor fascism has existed because blueh blarg barf. Real fascist capitalism would be bort.

Do you see how quickly these arguments dissolve into semantic nonsense?

[B5C]

No, bud.

The difference is, is that people have died due to the Capitalist system, and people have died due to the Fascist system, but no one died as a result of the communist system, since it has never existed.

How about the Great Leap Forward?
20-40 Million deaths?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward#Consequences

[Die Rote Fahne]

Communism has never existed, the argument is invalid.

[The Man]

Then give up on communism period. Anarchist/left communist/Luxembourgist tactics have historically lead to communist movements that couldn't even gain power, let alone work.

'36 Spain didn't work for the three years it lasted? (It didn't fail because of it. Just the bad tactics used by the militias.)

[Thug Lessons]

'36 Spain didn't work for the three years it lasted? (It didn't fail because of it. Just the bad tactics used by the militias.)

That question answers itself. No, it didn't work, it lasted for three years! Whatever metric we're using here, all communist movements have been equally unsuccessful, with the possible exception of Leninists if you're willing to accept flaw regimes that accomplished some good things.

[Baseball]

it's naive to suppose "the people" control the state in the USA. in any case, expulsion of the Cherokees didn't happen because the ordinary people were mobilized to demand it, but because the planter class demanded it.

Its true that there were no socialists around in the 1830s to instruct the people as to what they really wanted.
Dissappointing as it may be, people can actually make decision absent direction and guidance by the Party.


Capitalism is an expansionist system, and the planter class wanted more land, more slaves, to make more profits.

False. Most of the land held were in places not suitable for planters, but for small farms.

[Baseball]

Exactly. He is just coming up with another erroneous disconnection between capitalism and the state.

Apparently, right-libertarians like Baseball really do not see capitalism as a social order but some natural system that arises despite/outside of social institutions.

People like Baseball recognizes that capitalism grapples with problems which will always exist and with which socialism will also have to deal. Folks like Baseball recognize that capitalism is far superior than socialism in dealing with such problems.

[Baseball]

The hell if it didn't!

Russia was far from fucking industrializing in 1914.....

I'm no fan of Stalin, but to deny 'Socialism' improved living standards greatly is fucking horse shit.

At the onset of WW I, Russia was the most rapidly industrializing on earth. Its economy was growing more rapid than even that of the USA.

So Russia was on the verge of achieving all those wonderful things one saw under socialism, minus all the bloodshed and tyranny.
It wasn't worth it.

[RGacky3]

Its true that there were no socialists around in the 1830s to instruct the people as to what they really wanted.
Dissappointing as it may be, people can actually make decision absent direction and guidance by the Party.


That did'nt address the thing you were quoting AT ALL.


People like Baseball recognizes that capitalism grapples with problems which will always exist and with which socialism will also have to deal. Folks like Baseball recognize that capitalism is far superior than socialism in dealing with such problems.

Problems like externalities? like poverty? Like starvation? Capitalism does'nt do shit for any of that.

[Kiev Communard]

At the onset of WW I, Russia was the most rapidly industrializing on earth. Its economy was growing more rapid than even that of the USA.

So Russia was on the verge of achieving all those wonderful things one saw under socialism, minus all the bloodshed and tyranny.
It wasn't worth it.

Do you really think Tsarist authorities would have been less ruthless in ejecting small peasants from the land that Stalin was? The experience of India (which is modern equivalent of pre-1914 Russian Empire in terms of economy) shows otherwise...

Besides, who do you think would have appropriated all the fruits of new progress? Hint: scarcely workers and peasants themselves.

[Baseball]

Do you really think Tsarist authorities would have been less ruthless in ejecting small peasants from the land that Stalin was? The experience of India (which is modern equivalent of pre-1914 Russian Empire in terms of economy) shows otherwise...

Besides, who do you think would have appropriated all the fruits of new progress? Hint: scarcely workers and peasants themselves.


There had been land reform- supported by the Tsar- prior to WW I. Why assume a reverse?

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=RGacky3;2054974]That did'nt address the thing you were quoting AT ALL.

Sure it did:

The fellow assumed support for the land by the "common people" was invalid because nobody (presumably a socialist) organized the support and demand.

I should have added that most of the lands held by the Cherokee, Choctaw, and Seminole were not coveted or suitable for the large planters. Indeed, President Jackson was not the "planters' man (that was Calhoun). But Jackson was the "man" of the "common man" the workers, downtrodden ect ect. the type of folks which socialists like to say their hearts beat for. And Jackson gave them what they wanted.

[Pretty Flaco]

I would argue that true worker's socialism has never been achieved. Would most liberals consider the french revolution and Napoleonic france to have been the epitome of liberalistic values and principles?

[Kiev Communard]

There had been land reform- supported by the Tsar- prior to WW I. Why assume a reverse?

Actually that land reform was just as popular among the majority of Russian peasants as foreclosures in England of the 18th century to English peasantry of that time. The Tsar was despised, and sometimes hated by almost everybody after the Russo-Japanese War and the clampdown on revolution in 1907. During the Civi War his death was met with general indifference, and even White Guard rigtists did not openly advocate return to monarchy.

[Thug Lessons]

Actually that land reform was just as popular among the majority of Russian peasants as foreclosures in England of the 18th century to English peasantry of that time. The Tsar was despised, and sometimes hated by almost everybody after the Russo-Japanese War and the clampdown on revolution in 1907. During the Civi War his death was met with general indifference, and even White Guard rigtists did not openly advocate return to monarchy.

It's not like the Soviet agricultural reforms were met with jubilation, at least not everywhere, (the Ukraine springs to mind here).